Is this really a "Politics" topic or should it be moved to "Faith and Life"? 

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

I guess that's true.  Originally I wanted this to be a discussion of "justice" but it's evloved into a treatment of economics. 

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

As  Christians, if our economic behavior does not reflect our desire for justice, but we merely submit to the forces of the markets, then aren't we hypocrites?

Shall we order what we believe (or not) around our comfort, or shall we order our comfort (or not) on how we believe?

Michael,

I respect your ideas and want to talk about the issue to understand what is unjust about the minimum wage.

Based on your comments, do you pose the following then:

The question for me is whether the “minimum wage” properly reflects a “just wage.” “[Justice] is a moral quality or habit which perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them,” Catholic Encyclopedia. As such, a just wage renders to both the laborer and him for whom the laborer toils. Further, if a just wage must support a man and his family, this must be true regardless of where that family resides.

I posit that the minimum wage represents an unjust wage

GK - God is good!

I'm still trying to convience myself that demand is a sufficient justification to determine price.

I guess part of the problem is that I associate demand with need, which may not always be true ( as in the case of the entertainment industry for instance).  however, in the cases where it is true with things such as food and medicine I remain unconvinced that when these commodities are in shortage that those with greater wealth deserve to live when those with less deserve to die.   One the primary reasons I remain unconvinced is that the value of the human person seems to me entirely independent of their available wealth.  In fact the most value person to ever live, Jesus had no physical wealth to speak of and encouraged some to seek perfection by giving up their wealth.  So it seems those unable to afford food when the demand for it is high are as likely or more likely to deserve is then those who can pay the price affixed to it by the common estimation.  justice would seem to be best served if the necessary resources were given to those who deserve them based on merit of their true value as persons.  Not that I claim to know any way of measuring or accomplishing that.

GK:

I think the federal level is a terrible place to do a lot of things, but the minimum wage is certainly one of those.  Cities and towns certainly have the right and the ability to establish a minimum wage and should do so.  I'd even take it to the county or "economic zone" level (if the EZ didn't cross state boundries; an admitted problem in a number of regions).  The state is too high a level, though, unless the state is Rhode Island or, perhaps, Delaware.   I think that a minimum wage could be made to equal a just wage in some cases, I'm just arguing that, at the federal level, I don't think it deserves our bishop's support as a "just means to protect the human rights and dignity of workers."

Christopher:

"[I]n the cases where it is true with things such as food and medicine I remain unconvinced that when these commodities are in shortage that those with greater wealth deserve to live when those with less deserve to die."

Aren't you and I and GK in just such a position, compared with those living in, say, sub-Saharan Africa?  I'm currently unemployed, but I'll guarantee that my family lives better (in pure economic terms) than most others in the world and even a good few in the United States.  This concept of need/shortage, to my mind, deals more with charity than justice, though a part of Social Doctrine states that, in justice, all of the bounty of the world belongs to all people. 

You shouldn't combine the value of a human with the value of the work that he does.  The person in the persistent vegetative state has infinite value as a human (despite Mr. Schivo's assertion to the contrary), though no work is done (no economic value produced) .  Each and every person on earth deserves the ability to live "frugally" (Rerum) and this ability includes food, shelter, medical care, and the opportunity to earn a wage, in dignity, to secure those.  The current federal minimum wage envisages no such outcome, and so, does not deserve the bishop's support.

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

GK:

Unfortunately, it is an issue for those politically tied to labor unions, the contracts of which are tied to increases in the federal minimum wage.

My main issue, though, is with the bishops supporting it.  If they support it, I'd like a church-reasoned response as to why so that I can follow the lead of the shepherds.  Perhaps my mind is clouded.  I just can't find an argument from justice to support the current minimum wage law.

There is certainly no argument from Charity or Subsidarity. 

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

I think if the states are going to be primarily the author of minimum wage laws they will need also to pass a law that says any company that does not pay all of it's employees the same wage as the minimum wage within the state may not do business within that state.

I don't see it as a practicle alternative.  The minimum wage is not just but niether is it wholly unjust , it tries to address a problem I don't think the alternative you are suggesting is workable.

ok let me see if I'm understanding this because obviously I do not.

Your claim is that the the minimum wage fails to 'to render to each and to all what belongs to them".

Am I correct. 

Now if that were true for all people and all situations I'd say the statement was true. 

However it seems the law can do three things from both the employee and employeers prespective:

1) underpay them

2) over pay them

3) pay them fairly

Now I'd like to suggest that underpaying someone, while unjust, would be frustrated rather then helped by eliminating minium wage laws.

So I don't see how you can say they are wholly unjust.

 Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Secondly IF what the employer is being asked to pay is a just wage no unjustice has been done to them.  so only in 1 case is the employer being asked to pay something unjust.

 I don't see how you can say the law is wholly unjust it seems to me to be just at times and unjust at other times.  Weather or not it is a good law would seem to have great deal the percentage of people who are helped by the law ( those paid fairly or underpaid but paid more then they would be without it) vs those who are overpaid by the law.

 I don't have any good number on that do you?

As near as I can tell the numbers are highly disputed and broken down basically along political lines, so I don't give a lot of credibility to any of them.

Secondly you have raised an intresing point ( one I'm not sure I agree with)  about the value of a commedity ( an hour of work or a chair).  You have put forward the idea that the fair value of such a thing should be determined by the consensus of the consumers.  Isn't the whole point of representative goverment to capture the consensus of the populace? So if the representative government determines the fair price for a thing is X in theory that is in fact the fair price for the thing ( via consensus) as you suggest.

Myabe I am confused but to me it seems there are many laws in this world that are somewhat just and few if any that are wholly just.

I think that is simply a fact of our fallen human nature that many of our laws attempt to promote a specific good in defference to an other good but only do so partially.

Consider this: the most just law in the world would be to make it illegal for people to act unlovingling towards one another, it would be the only law that would be needed.  However it would be a wholly unenforcable law in our current state of being because we would be unable to judge it properly.  I'd suggest that all other laws are only shadows of the single just law that aproach it but do not really equate to justice in either the whole or the part.

I think you can argue that there are 1. unjust laws, 2. that there are just laws, 3. that there are just laws applied in an unjust manner, and 4. that there are morally neutral laws/regulations or those that may impinge on other virtues.  We needn't concern ourselves with numbers four or two.  I contend that the minimum wage falls into the first category, you seem to believe that it is in the third, if I follow your argument correctly (unless you think it has nothing to do with justice, in which case the bishops need a new argument as well).  How is it a just law - rendering to both the wage earner and the employer?

On consideration, I think your example law goes to Charity.

GK (if you're still following this)

The idea that we can hold the federal minimum static and provide increases in those areas where the cost of living is higher seems to move in the right direction, but why not repeal the federal minimum and let all municipalities, EZs, or counties decide a minimum?

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

Christopher:

The impetus of this discussion in not about an abolition of the minimum wage in toto but whether a federal minimum wage is "just" and deserves the support of the bishops.  If it is "just", how? 

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton

Christopher:

OK.  Social Order.  Now we’re moving.  The social order is fed by “justice,” not mere law.  One can make a law that has the effect of breaking good social order and creating a new order.  Totalitarian states do just this; creating laws that deny the dignity of the person and create a society of fear. 

So law and justice, while they should coincide, may not, and in special cases need not (speed limit, some provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.).  The question then is one of whether the minimum wage is one which promotes justice, is neutral, or denies justice.  If it promotes justice it is fair to both the laborer and the employer.  But if it is neutral, it cannot be termed “just” as the bishop’s statement has done.  Further, as we’ve seen, the minimum wage is rather random in its adherence to the just wage, to both parties.  So it seems unjust, as currently administered. 

Michael
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"

"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - GK Chesterton